Presidential Reference On Timelines For Bills' Assent : Live Updates From Supreme Court

J Kant: where is question formulated that a particular judgment is set aside, we know kaveri and 2G, we are here in Article 143

J Narasimha: the adjudicatory decision stands in completely footing than advisory

Singhvi: come to Kaveri judgment. yourlords is being asked to change the merits and contents of the decision in a and b in a subsequent decision. Purely appellate however nicely you couch it, very serious subversion of supreme court integrity. In appropriate case, mylords may refer but law will not change for the two parties, entire concept of stare decises will be completely subverted.

Singhvi: another nuance, 2G says you can have different view on law, in c v d case, law my change and same 2G mentions will not change the list. In the present case, it mylords allow advisory, mylords can't give a judgment. That is a and b, tamil nadu, stands as it is, and for rest of country, the law could be c and d. The decision 2G, kaveri, the view can't change.

every issue barring 11 and 12, and 14, everything is directly covered. 11, 12 and 14 does not arise because 11 is not a standalone and others are peripheral issue.

Kaveri is in my favour, my learned friends rely on 2G

If bench decides the matter and chooses not to reference, then in appropriate subsequent case and unrelated, in a matter between c and d, mylords may not refer.

Singhvi, for Tamil Nadu: first, the only state that went to the division bench. I succeeded.

1. No intra-court appeal is allowed

2. advisory can't be a substitute for review

3. Article 143 not substitute for hurra and curative

Venugopal: A judgment of Supreme Court is law under Article 141. They are bound by the law laid down but Article 143 is only an opinion.

Venugopal: Supreme Court is being asked to sit on judgments which is already decided...This wholly outside Article 143 because mylords can't touch judgment in Article 143 which has been decided.

Nowhere in reference, Tamil Nadu case referred to and reference is sought within days without seeking review. According to me, Government of India was bound to seek review. So far, President under Article 74 is bound by aid and advice and no area of discretion is left. The president has to carry out whatever advise given by Council of Ministers. In substance and effect, this reference is by Government of India. Please reference, its an attempt by GOI without filling review.

Venugopal: please see queries 1 to 11, each covered by Tamil Nadu case directly. Once a judgment covers these issues, these issues are no more res integra. The judgments in natural resources, kaveri and Gujarat assembly has said that if issues have been decided, no reference can be raised.

If issues are to be decided in Article 143, mylords are equally bound under Article 141

CJI: five judges bound by two judges?

Venugopal: unless mylords overrules it

CJI: Can you formulate your objections, Mr Venugopal

SG Mehta refers to the objections made by the AG that the matter may be referred to a larger bench

Venugopal: what he has raised in clause L...he never raised it

CJI: Solicitor General may not have referred to Article 145(3) speficially, but he said it needs to be referred to larger bench

Venugopal: if substantial question of law has been raised, no where in the entire judgment..

CJI: judgment is specifically record that he asked for reference, it was not considered is it his mistake?